I was watching David Gregory on MTP this morning, and I started thinking about why we disagree so strongly with him regarding the truth of the game he appears to be playing -- giving softball interviews so he can continue to get the big name VIPs on his show.
Big Blue did a diary about this question, having sent Mr Gregory an email about his questionable interactions with the staff of yes-he's-still-Governor Mark Sanford while Mr Sanford was out hiking or whatever.
Big Blue got a very interesting and I think relatively honest email response from David Gregory that gives us good insight into what he was thinking. A shorter version of the email:
I meant my forum allows him to have the time to discuss the situation in a fullsome way, to say what he wants and move on. I appreciate your sensitivity on this. It's a fair question to ask. I have never pulled punches in an interview.
I want to think for a moment about what we see when we're watching David Gregory sit at that desk on Sunday mornings, thinking he is giving some kind of impressive insight to his viewers.
He looks into the camera from time to time during roundtable discussions, and you really start to see that he doesn't think he's pulling punches with politicians. Because the thing is, everyone in that room works for corporations -- Gregory certainly does, as do many of the politicians he interviews if we're being honest, and the people in his round tables absolutely work for corporations of one sort or another. They all at least marginally agree that corporate news organizations are a decent road to the truth.
David Gregory is really chatting with David Broder and Michael Gerson and David Brooks, now that the mic is off and the camera is panning out. And he's actually hearing them say this bullshit to him that none of us think makes a wit of sense. But he doesn't read Kos, TPM or 538. He doesn't even watch Rachel Maddow or Keith Olbermann. He thinks David Brooks is relatively sensible, given that he's probably also watching Fox News and reading Drudge. Gregory is not reading those sites or talking to Gerson because he is conservative, but because he's too insulated from the outside world to understand that these people are not the real opponents in legit ideological debate -- Fox News is not real fiscal conservativism. And the rest of the media is not real liberalism. So when you just have WSJ editorialists on your show, and put them up against an AP or NPR journalist, you're not talking to people who believe in the progressive ideals of Rousseau or the capitalist theories of Adam Smith. Machiavelli's version of politics might have some influence on the more astute, but even then, just barely. David Gregory is so in the middle of the beltway that he really thinks Peggy Noonan has the pulse of some large number of Americans. Gregory really thinks that David Brooks cares about what Burke had to say about the cause of slowing the destructive speed of progress.
So in essence, David Gregory shits where he eats, excuse the language. He isn't really going outside beltway wisdom and finding video of Lindsay Graham being disgustingly courteous to poor John Roberts, and comparing that to the condescension with which he treated Sotomayor. He's just getting ready for his interview, maybe skimming the WaPo editorial page to see what he might want to ask Graham about what kinds of points are to be scored by killing his party's chances with the fast-expanding block of Latino voters in the US. David Gregory is basically reading news sources that use interviews with guys like Lindsay Graham and his aides to write up their analysis of the situation. Gregory then uses that news source to figure out what part of that particular story they might not have caught in their interview.
So when Jake Tapper or maybe even David Gregory shows up on this site, we should first acknowledge to ourselves that they might just be trying to respond to specific criticisms or maybe gain some viewers. But what we really need to do is use this as a chance to expose them to the range of experts that we have, like David Waldman on Congress, Kos on political observation, or BiPM's expertise on... what to do when faced with a full bottle of rum but only a half-bottle of Coke on a Friday afternoon.
Can you imagine if David Gregory actually did a round-table, where the liberal at the table said:
Yes, we the people really would love single-payer health care, but we'll settle for a public option. But with thousands losing coverage every month, we must have a public option now, or the American people (according to legitimate polling) will be furious with Obama. If they are unhappy with him about anything on health care, it is his lack of strong public leadership
But Mr Gregory first needs to be exposed to such liberal experts. We need a list of those experts on this site, their email addresses and what they specialize in. Wouldn't it have been great if we could have directed Jake Tapper to the great media criticism and health care work of some of our best, when he showed up at the site last week? I would hate to think that the White Papers on policy and commentary on politics found on this site were not in any way suitable for reporters that may or may not be interested in hearing what some of our people have to say -- and in Jake's case, he at least spent enough time submitting a few comments to indicate that he'd be willing to spend a few more minutes reading what some of our best minds have come up with on the issues he's discussing in comments. Wouldn't it be nice if our experts showed up in an article or some of our group's thoughts on politics made their way into the heads of people who speak to the nation with 'authority'?
I think one of the hardest things for a reader of this site is the sometimes unanswerable feeling that while we here at DailyKos are enjoying a good lively discussion about the proper direction of our nation, nobody that speaks publicly about the issues of our day could care less about the wide-ranging and thoughtful discussions we engage in. Some of the best analysis I've ever read in politics and policy have been on this site -- we must go beyond merely hoping that one day Obama will fill his cabinet to the brim with DKos favorites. It's time to help support even the bumbling attempts of folks in the media to understand what we have to say.
My call to action is this: we must have a list together of our best and brightest available to the press and public. If David Waldman's example on CNN is any indication of what we can accomplish, then we must both push our best out into the world, and support them with our constructive thoughts on their work in public when we can.
So who is your favorite voice on the issue you care about most here at DKos? We have amazing voices on Health Care, Labor, Defense, Foreign Policy, Polling, Primaries, Fundraising, Immigration, Technology, Culture and so much more.
(A Final Note: No offense is meant here to David Gregory in particular as a sole standard bearer for often-unimpressive Washington Journalism. He was simply the most easily accessible example as I sat staring at my television this morning, shocked once again at the crap being spewed by the pundits allowed on his show. And to think, I used to love Michele Norris when she was just a voice on the radio.)